Kindle Fire dwarfs other Android tablets in market share after just three months

After three months, the Kindle Fire has an equal share of the Android tablet …

The Kindle Fire is crushing standard Android tablets in market share after only three months, according to data collected by Flurry Analytics. Measured in application sessions on Android from November 2011 to January 2012, the Kindle Fire went from a 3 percent market share to 36 percent, while the Samsung Galaxy Tab, a brand that has been on sale for over two years, dropped from 64 percent market share to 36 percent.

According to Amazon, over 4 million Kindles were sold in the month of December, the bulk of which were Fires, despite its lukewarm reception. These sales were enough to give the device close to a third of the Android tablet market, as the shares of the Motorola Xoom, Asus Transformer, and Acer Iconia Tab dropped to a collective 18 percent. The Kindle Fire made an even better showing in paid app downloads, representing 2.53 app downloads from a 5-app sample of top sellers for every one downloaded on a Galaxy Tab.

Granted, flipping the numbers in the Android tablet space doesn't take an astronomical number of sales: for instance, Motorola shipped only 200,000 Xoom tablets in the fourth quarter. The Kindle Fire also likely owes much of its success to its $199 price, hundreds of dollars below the rest (the other tablets listed here have starting prices of $350 and higher). Flurry also attributes the Kindle Fire's growth to Amazon's focus on an ecosystem and content for users, an approach closer what Apple uses for the iPad, rather than focusing on hardware specs.

Casey Johnston
Casey Johnston is the former Culture Editor at Ars Technica, and now does the occasional freelance story. She graduated from Columbia University with a degree in Applied Physics. Twitter@caseyjohnston

It's a kindle...that does other cool shit, and you get put that extra $300 you saved by not buying an ipad in your savings account. Win win.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.

The Kindle Fire doesn't have "amazing" sales. It seems to have acceptable sales to the company that's selling it at a loss in order to try to make it up by selling content. But it doesn't require "amazing" sales to take over leadership of the tablets running Android, because none of them are selling especially well compared to the iPad.

It's a kindle...that does other cool shit, and you get put that extra $300 you saved by not buying an ipad in your savings account. Win win.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.

While true, I have no doubt that the Fire has affected the sales of high end tablets (iPad included though likely to a larger extent, other Android tablets). Not everyone needs a high end tablet (which is roughly $300 or 2.5x greater in cost) just as not everyone needs the high end laptop relative to a netbook in your own example.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.[/quote]

Your argument about netbooks vs high end laptops would make sense if there was any sort of benefit for a majority of consumers for spending that extra $300. As it stands, there isn't much difference between an "Amazon Consumption Device" and an "Apple Consumption Device." As long as the end user can play Angry Birds and surf the web in bed, they really shouldn't care about which company's logo is on the back. Unfortunately for the Apple fans, the increased Android/IOS app market overlap makes their device look needlessly expensive.

Your argument about netbooks vs high end laptops would make sense if there was any sort of benefit for a majority of consumers for spending that extra $300. As it stands, there isn't much difference between an "Amazon Consumption Device" and an "Apple Consumption Device." As long as the end user can play Angry Birds and surf the web in bed, they really shouldn't care about which company's logo is on the back. Unfortunately for the Apple fans, the increased Android/IOS app market overlap makes their device look needlessly expensive.

If all people do is play Angry Birds and surf the web, then indeed the iPad is needlessly expensive. Problem with that argument is that many people are using the iPad for much more than that.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.

Your argument about netbooks vs high end laptops would make sense if there was any sort of benefit for a majority of consumers for spending that extra $300. As it stands, there isn't much difference between an "Amazon Consumption Device" and an "Apple Consumption Device." As long as the end user can play Angry Birds and surf the web in bed, they really shouldn't care about which company's logo is on the back. Unfortunately for the Apple fans, the increased Android/IOS app market overlap makes their device look needlessly expensive.

Size alone makes a huge difference. 7" tablets should be cheaper. If Apple ever made one, theirs would cost less than the existing iPad too.

If all people do is play Angry Birds and surf the web, then indeed the iPad is needlessly expensive. Problem with that argument is that many people are using the iPad for much more than that.

Such as? The point I was trying to make is that these are both consumption devices, not creation devices. I can't think of any instances where the more powerful hardware of a Xoom, Ipad, Transformer, or Tab really matters. If you wanted to create content you're just going to do it on a desktop or laptop anyway.

It's a kindle...that does other cool shit, and you get put that extra $300 you saved by not buying an ipad in your savings account. Win win.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.

It's funny. When the iPhone first came out, people called it nothing more than an `Apple Consumption Device` too. Now people call it anything from a mobile computer to a game platform.

It would seem that the difference between "consumption device" and "computer" is simply the available application selection. And marketshare brings application developers to you.

zolandis wrote:

Does the Nook Color/Tablet somehow not exist in this survey's world? If it's not an Android tablet, then why is the Fire counted?

Probably because B&N haven't bothered to release numbers for it yet. Also, the Nook Color doesn't count as a tablet, for the same reason the older Kindles don't count.

Does the Nook Color/Tablet somehow not exist in this survey's world? If it's not an Android tablet, then why is the Fire counted?

I did just buy a Nook Tablet specifically because at $50 more than the Fire I feel like it has a lot more capability (and future utility). If I ever tire of the B&N imposed limitations there is always a vanilla Android install, so I feel like its certainly a reasonable purchase.

But my argument would be less Fire vs. iPad and more 7" screen vs 10" screen- some things are just fine, and some aren't-otherwise why would anyone need a Kindle if they've already got an Android/iOS phone? Oh yeah, screen size. That is a bigger determinant of utility for many purposes. The Fire is doing great in the market for 7" tablets, but I doubt too many people who were looking at the Galaxy Tab 10" tablet were going "hey, I can get a Fire and it's just the same!".

Technically I think it does. It doesn't use Google's latest releases, that's all. I'm sure Amazon doesn't want to be waiting on Google for upgrades. They've taken something like Android v2 and forked it -- which in my opinion the point of open source software .

It is quite interesting how this fork of it is doing far better than latest Android devices. I think it comes back to that end-to-end integration, which is lacking on Android and more apparent on a tablets.

If all people do is play Angry Birds and surf the web, then indeed the iPad is needlessly expensive. Problem with that argument is that many people are using the iPad for much more than that.

Such as? The point I was trying to make is that these are both consumption devices, not creation devices. I can't think of any instances where the more powerful hardware of a Xoom, Ipad, Transformer, or Tab really matters. If you wanted to create content you're just going to do it on a desktop or laptop anyway.

Remote access to machines, checking server logs (with less scrolling-plus I can type and not have to crazy scrolling to review output), drawing. Thats a start. But I think the "power" is less of an issue than the screen size-just like people wouldn't say a Droid X replaces a Fire, I'm not sure a Fire would replace a Tab (on a 1:1 basis).

Just checked and as of last March Nook Color had supposedly sold about 3 million- so I'd imagine that they've surpassed 4 million since then- so yeah, it seems like Flurry has left something out or missed something somehow.

Looking at it, it appears they are only looking at the Android App Store (official) and the Amazon Store-so they have just completely excluded B&N simply by not bothering to check. So all numbers they post are pretty useless.

It's a kindle...that does other cool shit, and you get put that extra $300 you saved by not buying an ipad in your savings account. Win win.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.

While true, I have no doubt that the Fire has affected the sales of high end tablets (iPad included though likely to a larger extent, other Android tablets). Not everyone needs a high end tablet (which is roughly $300 or 2.5x greater in cost) just as not everyone needs the high end laptop relative to a netbook in your own example.

Of course everyone's needs are not the same. Most people could do just fine for example with the absolute cheapest desktop on the market. Heck, most of my day to day stuff is done on my 6 year old iMac. But I'm a gamer too, so I also have a gaming rig for my playtime. I guess you could call my Windows 7 box my toy computer. ;-)

Personally I much prefer iOs to Android. By a lot. But that may not apply to you. Which is fine. It's a good thing to have options.

Please correct the article; Amazon has never claimed over 4 million Kindle Fire sold. What they have said, and that is also what the link provided in the article for 4 million says, is that in December they sold over 4 million Kindles, and that Fire was the best selling one (out of I don't know how many Kindle models; at least 3). So the sold at least 4 million / (number of models), which is quite different.

Which makes it even more interesting to know total Fire sales, Nook, Samsung tablets :-)

As it stands, there isn't much difference between an "Amazon Consumption Device" and an "Apple Consumption Device." As long as the end user can play Angry Birds and surf the web in bed, they really shouldn't care about which company's logo is on the back.

I think your use cases for a tablet are, shall we say, quite limited compared to what is actually going on in the real world. For example, one huge difference between the iOS device market (iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad) and the Android device market is music creation. There are lots of apps for musicians (GarageBand is the most well known, but there are a LOT of others, including capabilities that GarageBand doesn't provide), and lots of hardware designed specifically to allow musicians to use the iOS device in their music creation process (guitar interfaces, pedalboards, mic interfaces, holders that clip to microphone stands, etc., etc.). These will not exist for the Android device market until Android properly supports the low-latency real-time processing needed for this kind of stuff.

This is one example among many; I leave others as an exercise for the reader...

If all people do is play Angry Birds and surf the web, then indeed the iPad is needlessly expensive. Problem with that argument is that many people are using the iPad for much more than that.

Such as? The point I was trying to make is that these are both consumption devices, not creation devices. I can't think of any instances where the more powerful hardware of a Xoom, Ipad, Transformer, or Tab really matters. If you wanted to create content you're just going to do it on a desktop or laptop anyway.

Music creation apps as an obvious example. Despite what you think, people are using the iPad to create and update data of one form or another - take a look at what sort of apps are being used.

Screen size, video mirroring and a very capable GPU relative to the competition also doesn't hurt, and is a diferentiator when it comes to the the types of games that can be played which is a big market.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Kindle Fire ends up helping iPad sales. One of the obstacles to sales of a pad is that you have to have used one to realize just how convenient it is. $500 is a lot to spend on something that you might find that you don't use very much. On the other hand, $200 is in the impulse-buy range. I expect there will be quite a few people who buy a Kindle and then find themselves wishing for the greater speed and power, FaceTime/Skype capability, and larger screen size of an iPad. So the Kindle goes to the kids, and Dad and Mom get iPads for themselves.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Kindle ends up helping iPad sales. One of the obstacles to sales of a pad is that you have to have used one to realize just how convenient it is. $500 is a lot to spend on something that you might find that you don't use very much. On the other hand, $200 is in the impulse-buy range. I expect there will be quite a few people who buy a Kindle and then find themselves wishing for the greater speed and power, FaceTime/Skype capability, and larger screen size of an iPad. So the Kindle goes to the kids, and Dad and Mom get iPads for themselves.

So Samsung after one and half years and 4 or 5 different tablets was reduced to 36% of the Android tablet market in a month! This had me laughing at the irony. Amazon is killing Google with its own poison. Now Amazon just needs a bigger tablet at about 9" to 10" and Android on the tablet will be more like Linux on the desktop.

What I find incredibly sad is how there are no similarly priced Android phones. Smartphones use the exact same hardware as tablets, except that tablets use bigger and more expensive touchscreens and batteries. Asus already announced at CES its intention to sell a $250 Tegra 3 tablet.

So where are the $200 dual-core smartphones? Why do they all retail for three times the price of the Kindle Fire? It's market collusion, and the lack of government action to crack down on this illegal behavior is incredibly frustrating.

Just look at the PS Vita. The 3G version has a Build of Materials of $160, and retails for $300. Does anyone really think it would cost much for Sony to add a cell radio? At worst it would add a few dollars to the BoM. But they won't do it because that would eat into their ridiculously high smartphone margins, since smartphones with lower BoM's retail for $600+.

Does the Nook Color/Tablet somehow not exist in this survey's world? If it's not an Android tablet, then why is the Fire counted?

Probably because B&N haven't bothered to release numbers for it yet. Also, the Nook Color doesn't count as a tablet, for the same reason the older Kindles don't count.

Why wouldn't the Nook Color count and the Fire would? It runs a modified Android OS (hence the Angry Birds, Pandora, Netflix and Flash support). And at least as of last March they had reported numbers.

Reading the Flurry blog post further it reads even more like an Amazon press release as you go further down. But dropping the Nook Color/Tablet category (just found an IDC report that lists an expectation of 1.1Mil Tablets and 400k Colors in 4Q 2011) only seems to show that skew even further ("Look, we have a huge amount of the market if you don't include our closest competitor!").

So where are the $200 dual-core smartphones? Why do they all retail for three times the price of the Kindle Fire? It's market collusion, and the lack of government action to crack down on this illegal behavior is incredibly frustrating.

You do know that the hardware that goes into a product alone is not the only factor its price is based on, don't you?

It's a kindle...that does other cool shit, and you get put that extra $300 you saved by not buying an ipad in your savings account. Win win.

The iPad and the Kindle aren't for the same market. You may want to read the review on it in the link in the article. It's more of an 'Amazon Consumption Device" than an actual tablet. Also, it's kinda like saying that the cheapest netbook is as good as a high end laptop.

While true, I have no doubt that the Fire has affected the sales of high end tablets (iPad included though likely to a larger extent, other Android tablets). Not everyone needs a high end tablet (which is roughly $300 or 2.5x greater in cost) just as not everyone needs the high end laptop relative to a netbook in your own example.

In the latest earnings call Tim Cook specifically mentioned that there was no change in sales when the Kindle Fire was released, and they have yet to notice a decrease in sales.

It looks as though the customers who buy Kindles had no intention to purchase iPads. We'll see if that holds true in future earnings reports.

What I find incredibly sad is how there are no similarly priced Android phones. Smartphones use the exact same hardware as tablets, except that tablets use bigger and more expensive touchscreens and batteries. Asus already announced at CES its intention to sell a $250 Tegra 3 tablet.

So where are the $200 dual-core smartphones? Why do they all retail for three times the price of the Kindle Fire? It's market collusion, and the lack of government action to crack down on this illegal behavior is incredibly frustrating.

Just look at the PS Vita. The 3G version has a Build of Materials of $160, and retails for $300. Does anyone really think it would cost much for Sony to add a cell radio? At worst it would add a few dollars to the BoM. But they won't do it because that would eat into their ridiculously high smartphone margins, since smartphones with lower BoM's retail for $600+.

Well, there is the FCC application (and worldwide analogs) that do set a minimum revenue floor to be reasonable- its not just the cost of the radio that factors in.

So where are the $200 dual-core smartphones? Why do they all retail for three times the price of the Kindle Fire? It's market collusion, and the lack of government action to crack down on this illegal behavior is incredibly frustrating.

Cell phone retail prices have always been absurdly high. I wonder if there's some kind of quid pro quo going on with the carriers, since it creates a strong incentive to entice customers into lengthy contracts. Then the manufacturers get to rake in a huge margin from the carrier, which is still only a small portion of the value of the contract. Win-win.

As long as the end user can play Angry Birds and surf the web in bed, they really shouldn't care about which company's logo is on the back. Unfortunately for the Apple fans, the increased Android/IOS app market overlap makes their device look needlessly expensive.

So quality doesn't matter? If the device is something you're going to use a lot, even if it's for a limited range of tasks, things like the quality of the screen and smoothness of interaction are important.

Let's make a (shudder) car analogy. If all you do is drive your car to work and to do shopping, then there's no point buying anything better than a Yugo, right?

According to Amazon, over 4 million Kindle Fires were sold in the month of December

The story linked there says

Quote:

Amazon is bragging about sales numbers for its Kindle products, reporting that over 1 million devices were sold per week in December. The company did not report numbers for individual products, but noted that the Kindle Fire has held the top spot on its bestseller charts over the holiday season.

which is not the same thing as one million Fires per week. The estimates in that article were that on the order of 70-80% of that million Kindles per week were Fires, but nobody outside of Amazon really knows for sure.